From Grand Rapids, a town where it seems black crime never sleeps, a particularly disturbing one occurred this morning, when witnesses at the downtown-based Grand Rapids Community College saw a black male dragging the body of a white woman between the buildings of the school. People walking at that hour saw the horrible sight, and called police. This was not too far from the police station, but when police arrived, they only found the white woman’s body and not the probable killer. Fifteen hours later, the woman has not been publicly identified, except to say she was a white [!] woman between the ages of 30 and 40. Police are calling it a murder, and are looking for who did it, but lately police have stopped giving much information on crimes involving blacks.

Two days ago, a 27-year-old black shot his fat black girlfriend in the neck, went to a business he used to work at, rounded up the employees, sexually assaulted one woman, and stole a car. He wound up on my side of town, but police never gave a name to the suspect—though the TV station did—by talking to relatives.

This used to be a good town. Not anymore.

Update, at 7:28 p.m.
Let me clarify. I heard this woman was white on a TV station. Have not seen that in print. Will keep you posted.

Reader-Researcher Jerry PDX to GR Anonymous (11:08 p.m.):

Your local "news"paper must have the same policy ours does, mention of race is not permitted for either victims or suspects, unless the perp is white, then it's OK to loudly announce "white." Only time it's supposed to be OK to mention race is if a suspect represents an immediate danger to the public, only problem is that the only criminals that ever seem to be deemed that dangerous are always white – never black. Local TV stations will sometimes mention the race of a suspect and sometimes not, depending on how politically correct they’re feeling, I guess.

Grand Rapids Anonymous wrote some other excellent essays as comments, but that was before he identified where he lived, and I was thus unable to locate them. When I do, I’ll add them to the Grand Rapids file.

FIRST. This is starting to feel suspect. Meaning these black mothers are looking to get paid. Even if it means to have their kids killed. A new black whore hustle? We all know they don’t LOVE them. Put a toy gun in their hands, push them out the door, peek thru the curtain and wait. Harsh statement? Don’t put it pass these parasites. You already have them getting pregnant for child support, welfare benefits and housing. Not out of love and wanting to start a family. Just the lowest form of another hustle in the MILLIONS.

The Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan has endorsed one of the presumptive nominees for President. No, it’s not David Duke endorsing Trump. Duke has not been involved in whatever is left of the Klan for over 35 years, not that he’s gotten any credit for it. Rather Will Quigg, California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights has endorsed Hillary Clinton and claimed his organization has funneled $20,000 in anonymous donations to her campaign....

Mike Pence is yet another phony GOP “conservative.” Back In 2006, he claimed to have come up with a “compromise” on immigration that was just a disguised mass amnesty of illegal aliens. Ted Cruz has acted similarly, talking tough on illegal immigration, but being soft on legal immigration.

I’ll give Pence this, however: He said a lot of nice things about Donald Trump, and promised to work his “heart out,” to help elect whoever wins the nomination.

When Pence started to criticize the John Doe who calls himself “Barack Hussein Obama,” saying how much nicer it would be “to have someone working for us, rather than against us,” CNN immediately cut him off.

CNN host Ashleigh Banfield just called Pence’s endorsement “colossal news,” but that’s because she’s desperately trying to keep viewers interested, and in order to try and hurt Donald Trump.

I’ve concluded that Republicans speak in terms of universalist abstractions, not because they believe in them, but because they’re too cowardly to call a spade a spade. It’s like a self-mounted chastity belt, which renders them politically and intellectually impotent, while still leaving them prone to catching all sorts of diseases. (You can still contract AIDS, while being chaste.)

The racist Left has no principles or facts, just murderous hatred, and lust for totalitarian power. Larry Auster failed to face that.

Wanna know why lamestream conservatives mostly lose?

Because they analyze the left’s tribal identity politics in terms of universalist abstractions, mainly because they take the left’s universalist pretenses at face value, and conclude that since the left’s tribal identity based effort du jour does not meet whatever universalist abstraction is supposedly the matter at hand, that just saying that and writing that will carry the day and make the left back down.

Listening to Cruz always makes me feel like I have Asperger’s. He speaks so slowly, my mind wanders between words. As Trump said, there’s a 10-second intermission between sentences. I want to order Cruz’s speeches as Amazon Audibles, just so I can speed them up and see what he’s saying....

Now that Cruz has been mathematically eliminated, he’s adding Carly Fiorina to the ticket. She’s not his “running mate,” but his “limping mate.” It’s an all-around lemon-eating contest.

Voters quickly moved on from Cruz and tried Kasich. But he turned out to be the spitting image of a homeless man. He’s got the slouch, the facial tics, and a strange way of bouncing his head and looking around that makes you want to cross the street to avoid him. It looks like he cuts his own hair, and his suits are Ralph Nader cast-offs. He wolfs down food like a street person, has a hair-trigger temper, and rants about religion in a way that only he can understand….

A couple of months ago, I observed buff, black, racist-communist Van Jones physical assault and intimidation as “debating” tactics against elderly, frail, white Trump supporter, Jeffrey Lord. Jones was putting his hands on Lord, while yelling at him. Legally, that’s assault. (Yes, I realize how ridiculous that sounds, but that’s the law that cops keep in their back pocket, for any time they want to capriciously use it against someone they don’t like.)

Jones was neither arrested nor fired for his misconduct.

However, I noticed last night that CNN had since made a change. Someone in charge placed S.E. Cupp between Lord and Jones. I don’t see Jones reaching through her to get at Lord.

By Nicholas Stix
Corrected, revised, and extended on Wednesday, April 27, 2016, at 5:05 a.m.

A 1984 episode of the classic, humorous, horror TV show, Tales from the Dark Side, “A Case of the Stubborns,” was about an old man who dies, but who refuses to admit it. His family tells him he’s dead, but Grandpa Titus Tolliver (Eddie Bracken) insists he’s still alive. However, like it or not, he starts decomposing. Finally, one day, Grandpa’s nose falls off! Then he embarrassedly resigns himself to being dead, and goes and lies down on his bed.

Today, Ted Cruz’ nose fell off, but will he acknowledge that his presidential campaign is dead?

Far be it from me to condemn a man for stubbornness. While I’m an easygoing feller, I live in a home surrounded by bullheaded types.

In spite of being up against two rivals, Donald Trump got over 50% of the vote in all five primaries. His enemies used to say, “He’s got a ceiling of 30%.” Then it was, “He’s got a ceiling of 35%.” So, what are they going to say now? “He’s got a ceiling of 60%”? Trump is now averaging over 55% (54.4-63.8%), while Cruz is averaging under 20% (10.4-21.6%), and only beat Kasich, and barely at that, in Pennsylvania. And yet, Cruz and his spokesman keep on saying that Trump is a marginal candidate. Even CNN’sDavid Gergen, a political chameleon, said on Monday night that it’s ridiculous for people supporting Cruz, who has much less support, to keep on calling call Trump a “marginal, fringe” candidate.

Trump has been the presumptive Republican nominee since March 1, and yet his enemies in the Republican Party and the mainstream media have constantly denied this reality. On Tuesday, one of his enemies’ TV mouthpieces lied and said, “You’re not the presumptive nominee, until you have 1,237 delegates.”

No, once you have 1,237 delegates, you’re the nominee, pure and simple, no qualifier. The only point to calling someone the “presumptive nominee,” is because the frontrunner doesn’t yet have the required number of delegates, but is a lock to get them.

On the eve of Tuesday’s primaries, Ted Cruz’ chief flack denied that the results, whatever they would be, would have any effect on Cruz, still claimed that Trump would not make it to the required 1,237 delegates, and asserted that Cruz would go to the convention in Cleveland, and win on the second ballot. On Tuesday, Republican writer Mary Katharine Ham asserted that just because you get 1,100 delegates, “They don’t give you 1,237.”

Actually, unless you’re looking to consign the GOP to the dustbin of history, it means just that. The question regarding Ham, whom I once respected now is, Is she in Cruz’ pocket, Kasich’s, or a donor’s? (While I support Trump, I’m in nobody’s pocket. I recently twitted him that he was stupid to promise to fix the economy overnight.)

Around 12:30 a.m. early Wednesday, some of the lefty talking heads at CNN finally admitted that Trump is the “presumptive nominee” of the Republican Party.

If Ted Cruz wants to hang around without a nose on his face, that’s his corpsely prerogative. As for John Kasich, we’ll hopefully find out one day what dark demons urge him on. In the meantime, get ready for what promises to be one of the wildest rides in American electoral history, what’s left of it!

Trump is giving a press conference in New York City, celebrating his sweep in five primaries. He is flanked by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and PA Cong. Lou Barletta, and has referred favorably to Christie at least twice, “Chris can tell you that.”

Does this mean that he’s going to select Christie as his running mate? If he isn’t Trump is engaging in a big-time tease.

I’m not crazy about Christie, due to his arrogance, his open-borders politics, and his being from the next-door state. I’d much prefer someone like Sen. Jeff Sessions, a humble, immigration reform Southerner.

In recent years, an addition to what I call the Black School of Rhetorical Bombast has been a pretentious redundancy. Instead of “slaves,” one writes “enslaved persons,” as if the term “slave” didn’t already presuppose personhood. I guess black supremacist “scholars” wanted to distinguish between “enslaved persons” and, say, “enslaved horses.” Similarly, instead of saying “blacks,” one must now say, “black bodies.” And instead of “athletes,” one must say, “athletes’ bodies.”

Do these people fail to realize how stupid they sound, or do they grasp and glory in it?

Dulled by clichés, haunted by hacks, and compelled by debts, the first autobiography of legendary boxer Joe Louis, My Life Story, would seem to deserve its obscurity. Published in 1947 when the aging champ faced a waning career and mounting bills, My Life Story might be dismissed as a facile attempt to exploit his fame in order to raise sorely needed cash. Louis also received "editorial aid" from Chester Washington and Haskell Cohen, two sportswriters whose involvement might cast the value of the boxer's official story into doubt, insofar as they compromise the authenticity of the narrative. Moreover, the book resulting from this collaboration hews closely to the banal conventions of celebrity autobiography, portraying Louis as ordinary and modest, hardworking but lucky. This up-by-the-jockstrap tale of the boxer's rise from poverty to prominence disappointed reviewers in both the mainstream [white] and black press who expected something "that would reveal a little more of the man" (Dulles 36). One reviewer grumbled, "there is hardly a passage that couldn't have been written by a well-informed sports writer assigned to ghost the story of Joe Louis" (My Life Story 99); another complained that My Life Story neglected the boxer's "early years—a portion of Joe's life which might make fresh and interesting reading" (Fay B14); another regretted that the book "falls short of giving an adequate picture of the man who did this fighting" (Martin 15); and yet another panned the book as "trite and unrevealing to the point of inanity" (Lardner 235).

To scholars seeking to define—and defend—a selective literary tradition of African-American autobiography, Louis's book, like the overdetermined [?] memoirs of other black celebrities, has been insignificant. Unlike Richard Wright's Black Boy (1945), My Life Story can be dismissed easily for lacking art and authenticity, as well as the sharp, sustained engagement with American racism that has made [the Communist] Wright's literary narrative so compelling to critics. Nevertheless, beyond matters of quality and canon, Louis's memoir raises salient questions about the cultural politics of recognition that has often induced the public black self. [“Induced”?] More specifically, My Life Story arrived at a pivotal moment in the advent of the black athlete as a distinct autobiographical figure, which impels us to examine the historical insertion of athletes' bodies [“athletes' bodies”?] into African-American autobiography. [Louis’ book wasn’t an autobiography, to begin with.] We can trace the self-presentation of the black athlete to G. W. Offley's 1859 slave narrative and James Corrothers's 1916 autobiography, which recount their authors' experiences as boxers. In the 1920s, two more notable professional athletes, both retired, published their autobiographies. Notorious prizefighter Jack Johnson, who preceded Louis as the world's first black heavyweight champion from 1908 to 1915, published Jack Johnson—In the Ring—and Out in 1927. In the following year, the acclaimed cyclist Marshall "Major" Taylor published The Fastest Bicycle Rider in the World. No other black athlete would produce an autobiography for the next two decades, but Louis's My Life Story (followed shortly by Jackie Robinson's My Own Story in 1948) belonged to a new configuration taking shape within black autobiography. After World War II, the number of such books grew steadily. Black athletes published four autobiographies in the 1950s, 12 in the 1960s, and more than 30 in the 1970s (two-thirds of which appeared between 1970 and 1975). Whatever its proximate causes, this proliferation registers the limits and pressures shaping African-American autobiography as a discrete form of cultural production. Upon what grounds, then, could Louis and other athletes come to inhabit the black "I"?

One of Louis's key tropes should elucidate the transitional significance of those black athlete autobiographers whose body language narrates them. [“Whose body language narrates them?”] Throughout his career, Louis's reticence was well known, and the boxer explains in My Life Story that "I always believed in letting my fists talk for me" (54). While he essentially adapts the pragmatist's cliché that "actions speak louder than words," the narrated Louis replaces both writing hands and "talking books" with talking fists as the source of his power. [In simple English: The man was inarticulate.] As Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Robert Stepto have so influentially shown, black autobiographical narratives since the eighteenth...

[Foy is kissing empire-builder Skip Gates’ ring, in order to help get Foy’s article published.]

There are a few excellent black writers, but jumbles like this are all too typical of black intellectuals. What sort of disordered mind produces them? More urgently, how can whites — accustomed to language that communicates rather than wears down — deal with such minds? At the very least, whites must recognize that they face something fundamentally alien.

Although my own academic background is in theoretical physics, I’m the first to admit that field seems in the doldrums these days compared with human evolutionary biology.

The greatest physics discoveries of the last couple of years—the Higgs Boson and strong evidence for Cosmological Inflation—merely confirm the well-established beliefs that physicists have had since before I entered grad school. It’s nice that such experimental evidence means that individuals such as Peter Higgs, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde, whose names have been prominent in the standard textbooks for decades, have received or will surely soon receive their long-deserved Nobel Prizes, but little new has been learned. Or so is the impression of a lapsed theoretician who left that field over twenty-five years ago and who mostly follows it through the pages of the major newspapers.

Meanwhile, human evolutionary biology has been on a tear, partly due to the full deciphering of the human genome over the last couple of decades and our increasing technical ability to effectively read archaic DNA from thousands or even tens of thousands of years in the past. In recent years we have seen shocking discoveries that most humans possess small but probably significant Neanderthal ancestry and that important genetic changes have regularly swept through our genome. On the theoretical side, it was long assumed that human genes had changed little since Cave Man days, but we now understand that in some respects human evolution may have actually accelerated during the last ten thousand years as our rapidly growing population provided a much larger source of potentially favorable mutations, while agriculture and civilization were simultaneously applying strong selective pressures.

Although my other projects have prevented me from following these developments except through newspapers, blogs, and books, such evolutionary issues have long fascinated me. During the early 1980s I even participated in the field, studying under Harvard’s E.O. Wilson and felt that if physics had not been an option, evolutionary biology would have been my next choice. I remember telling all my skeptical friends in 1979 that Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was probably one of the most important books of the decade, and I stand by that opinion today.

Yet although our understanding of the origins of modern humans and their biologically-influenced behavior has grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades, these world-changing developments seem to have received extremely scanty coverage in the mainstream press, meaning that many of them have probably not penetrated into the public consciousness of those who are not academic specialists. The assumptions and world-views of most American intellectuals and journalists often seem stuck in the 1980s, clinging to ideas that are almost completely outmoded and incorrect, much like Soviet biology into the 1960s was still crippled by the Stalinist legacy of Trofim K. Lysenko, who had argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics and purged all those biologists who disagreed.

America’s own Lysenko is surely the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, whose platform in the prestige media and widely assigned books have massively influenced entire generations of college students and thinkers. Unfortunately, just like his Soviet counterpart, Gould promoted ideologically motivated misrepresentations of reality, sometimes backed by outright scientific fraud, and people who read his books are regularly absorbing falsehoods.

In a further parallel to the Soviet case, Gould and his Marxist circle of friends and allies, including Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and several others, regularly sought to purge or otherwise silence their most honest and courageous colleagues. During the 1970s, Harvard’s Wilson became their particular target for daring to publish his landmark book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and their wild ideological charges led radical student demonstrators to demand the university fire one of its brightest tenured stars and even to physically assault the mild-mannered Wilson at a meeting of the American Academy of Sciences. Although Gould seems to have been a rather mediocre scientist, some of his radical allies such as Lewontin were first-class researchers, but also ideologues who allowed their politics to dictate their science.

While I was a graduate student at Cambridge University during the mid-1980s, these events occasionally came up in casual discussions across the dining tables. On one such occasion, a former grad student of Lewontin’s said that during the height of the sociobiology controversy he had asked his mentor why he was leveling such ridiculous accusations against a colleague, with the reply being that those accusations were admittedly scientific nonsense, but they served the political interests of Marxism, which was far more important. Meanwhile, given Gould’s strength in words but his weakness in thinking, I find it reasonably likely that he simply believed many of the absurdities he was spouting.

As the years and the decades have gone by, I’ve always assumed that Gouldism was about to lose its grip on American intellectual life, but that assumption has always proven wrong. The totally absurd notion that genetics plays a relatively small role in influencing most human behaviors represents a zombified doctrines [sic], absorbing endless seemingly fatal scientific wounds at the hands of prominent scholars but remaining almost unkillable, more like a religious dogma than a scientific doctrine.

For example, in 2002 Harvard’s Steven Pinker, one of America’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, published The Blank Slate, an outstanding critique of this incorrect reigning dogma, which specifically included a lengthy debunking of Gould, Lewontin, and their circle. Not only was the book a huge seller and glowingly discussed throughout the MSM, but I was stunned to read an equally favorable review in The Nation, pole-star of America’s political Left. I naturally assumed that the full collapse of Gouldism was underway, an impression enhanced once the august New York Times later published an article describing an important instance of Gould’s scientific fraud.

But a year or two ago, when I heard smart intellectuals still citing Gould, I asked a prominent academic how that would possibly be the case. He explained that whereas in the 1990s, probably 99% of intellectuals believed in Gould, the massive revelations of recent years had merely reduced that support to 95%, leaving Gouldism almost as entrenched as ever. Whereas worldwide support for Stalinism substantially collapsed following Khrushchev’s 1956 “Secret Speech” Gouldian nonsense seems to have largely avoided that fate.

[That is because of the monolithic political power of racial socialism in academia, news rooms, and the schools.]

But perhaps that is now about to change.

One of the oddities of American intellectual life is that although a full-fledged scientific revolution in human genetics and evolution has been taking place for the last couple of decades, very little of this has been reported in the mainstream media, perhaps because the findings so totally contradict the numerous falsehoods that so many senior editors presumably imbibed during the introductory anthropology courses they took to satisfy their science distributional requirement as undergraduates.

[No, it is for political reasons. The editors understand, just as Gould and Lewontin did, that breakthroughs in genetics further debunk the quackery they have long promoted, and the totalitarian politics based on it.]

Indeed, when I consider the major news stories on evolutionary breakthroughs I have read in our MSM over the last dozen years, the overwhelming majority seem to have been written by a single individual, Nicholas Wade of The New York Times, who recently retired after twenty years as a [sic] editor and reporter at our national newspaper of record, following previous decades of work at top scientific publications such as Nature and Science.

When I asked around a little, my impression was confirmed. Our nation of over 300 million may be in the forefront of evolutionary discovery, but Wade has long been almost the only reporter seriously covering these fascinating developments in the mainstream print media. Meanwhile, the weekly New York Times Science Section seems to be moving in the direction of People Magazine, with so much of the coverage seemingly focused on phone apps, dieting, and phone apps to assist with dieting. For example, fully half of the Letters page in this morning’s print edition was devoted to a heated debate on the Science of Overeating.”

But while his former colleagues often focus on the transient and the trivial, Wade has spent the last couple of years producing an outstanding book to bring awareness of the revolutionary discoveries of modern genetic research to a broader American audience. Generations of Soviets had been taught the inheritance of acquired characteristics in their universities, and I assume they must have been shocked to discover it was all an ideologically motivated hoax. I suspect that many complacent American intellectuals may have a similar reaction to Wade’s book, which focuses on the highly touchy subject of the genetic nature of our distinct human races and the implications for society and history, bearing the descriptive title A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History. I’d certainly rank Wade’s book as the most important popular presentation of these ideas at least since Pinker’s Blank Slate. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I was also very pleased to see him substantially cite my own major articles from the last couple of years on race, IQ, and wealth and the Social Darwinist roots of modern China.

All too many socially-conditioned Americans have absorbed the Lewontin-Gould mantra that “Race Does Not Exist” which from a scientific perspective is roughly similar to claiming that “Teeth Do Not Exist” or perhaps “Hills Do Not Exist,” with the latter being an especially good parallel. It is perfectly correct that the notion of “hill” is ill-defined and vague—what precise height distinguishes a pile of dirt from a hill and a hill from a mountain?—but nevertheless denying the reality or usefulness of such a concept would be an absurdity. Similarly, the notion of distinct human races—genetic clusters across a wide variety of scales and degrees of fuzziness—is an obviously useful and correct organizing principle, and one which was probably accepted without question by everyone in the history of the world except for deluded Americans of the last fifty years.

Anyway, let us suppose that the Gouldians rising up to denounce the heretic, such as anthropologist Agustin Fuentes, are given their way and the common term “race” is purged from our scientific vocabulary as being meaningless. Well, large-scale genetic population clusters obviously continue to exist in the real world and are an important element in ongoing research, both medical and evolutionary. So it would make sense to conveniently replace an overly cumbersome multisyllabic phrase with a short single-syllabic word now suddenly gone unused, namely “race.”

Indeed, I would suggest that one of the sources of present-day confusion is that the very term “race” has undergone an unfortunate metamorphosis over the course of the 20th century. Today, when people speak of “races” they are almost invariably referring to the continental-scale mega-races such as Asians, Africans, and Europeans. These “races” certainly exist and are highly meaningful and distinct in genetic terms, with blogger Steve Sailer slyly noting that the cover of Prof. Luca Cavalli-Sforza definitive tome on human genetic diversity displays a colored worldwide map looking much like what Sen. Strom Thurmond in his dotage might have drawn on a napkin with crayons.

But I would argue that restricting the term race to merely that small handful of huge groupings is extremely wasteful and we are far better off also applying the term to its traditional meaning, typically aimed at much smaller population groups. One hundred years ago, every educated individual casually used phrases such as “the Anglo-Saxon race,” “the Hungarian race,” and “the Chinese race,” and this is exactly the usage to which we should restore. To be sure, these particular genetic population clusters are naturally grouped into higher-level clusters as well—with Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles all being branches of the larger Slav race, itself a component of the European mega-race, but the word can remain flexible in scale without producing any serious confusion. All these groups are exactly the sort of natural statistical clusters that regularly appear during genetic population analysis, and we might as well use the traditional popular term for them rather than inventing an entirely new one.

As for the full contents of Wade’s book, several reviews have already noted a few small glitches here and there and I myself certainly took issue with some of his arguments. For example, I think he is much too accepting of Gregory Clark’s influential 2007 book [A Farewell to Alms] arguing that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain because the British had undergone nearly a thousand years of uniquely strong selection for economic success, a thesis I find extremely doubtful. I also think Wade should have given far more attention to the seminal Cochran-Harpending theory [The 10,000 Year Explosion] that the rapid growth of human population after the development of agriculture has produced an equally rapid acceleration in mutation-driven evolution during the last ten thousand years, and Wade’s omission surely explains why the notoriously arrogant and irascible Gregory Cochran published such an unfriendly review on his own blogsite. Certainly everyone should explore all sides of the ongoing debate and a small racialist website has conveniently gathered together annotated links to the dozens of reviews across the web, favorable, unfavorable, and mixed. But reading the book itself is essential for anyone interested in the current state of human evolutionary science.

I’d originally intended to publish my own perspective several weeks ago and was delayed by other pressing matters. But I have been very pleased to see that Wade’s book is beginning to receive the major attention it so greatly deserves. American intellectuals must begin shedding a half-century of lies and dishonesty based on the dismally unscientific dogma of Stephen Jay Gould and instead start to discover what modern evolutionary biologists and genetic researchers have all known for years or even decades. A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade of the New York Times may represent a huge step forward in achieving this important goal.

VDARE.com has long been very skeptical of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the ”wise Latina” and self-proclaimed “Affirmative Action Baby” whose nomination by Obama in 2009 was an early indication of his crude racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s bullying performance during the April 18 U.S. vs. Texas oral arguments fully justified this skepticism. She has become an embarrassment to the Court.

With hundreds of demonstrators, many bused in by La Casa de Maryland, poised at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building waving both commercially and hand-made signs approving the Obama Administration’s Executive Amnesty effort, the battle lines had been drawn. Inside, at 10 o’clock the Crier of the U.S. Supreme Court banged her gavel and intoned: “Please rise….” then…“God save the United States and this honorable court,” while the justices, in order of seniority, took their seats perched above the lectern. Today would be different: there would be only one case, U.S. v. Texas, and it would last 90 minutes—something not done often during the Court’s Term, due to its national importance, described by a student of the Court as having the potential, “…to be the most important in the nation’s history.” [The Implications of United States v. Texas , By John Miano, April 14, 2016]

The graphic above depicts nine human figures. How many are recognizably white?

The erasure of whites from drawings, photographs, commercials, TV shows and movies is part and parcel of the campaign to erase whites from the world. The word is genocide. Google is a leader in the race to a white Holocaust.

In recent weeks, Americans have been dramatically reminded of a development that in fact has been institutionalized for over thirty years in America: The war on white male heroes. Fought under the pretext that too many white faces makes blacks feel unwelcome, and that more black faces will raise black self-esteem and hence black achievement, the war on white male heroes has been a pillar of multiculturalism's (primarily Afrocentrism and feminism), anti-white race war.

Billions of people around the world saw the picture of three white New York City firemen – Dan McWilliams, George Johnson and William Eisengrein — raising the American flag at Ground Zero on September 11. That photograph was to be memorialized by a $180,000 bronze statue at Fire Department headquarters. However, Democratic Party fundraiser (and Clinton-crony) Bruce Ratner, who commissioned the statue, and FDNY honchos, decided there was a problem with the photograph: Too many white faces. The solution was to falsify the image, by turning one fireman into a black, and another into an Hispanic. As so often occurs in the war on white, male heroes, initially, the mainstream media refused even to report on the revisionist statue. On December 21, when New York City Fire Department officials announced the plan for the revisionist statue, NewsMax alone reported on it. Although a petition campaign totaling (for two petitions), at this writing, over 400,000 signatures, got the FDNY brass and Bruce Ratner to back down from their agitprop statue, for purely racial reasons, they do not plan on memorializing the three white firemen. (One on-line petition totaling 395,000 signatures as of this writing, has been started and maintained by Free Republic activist Jeff Head.)

“Suicide is painless”? Says who? Says the 15-year-old kid who wrote the lyrics, that’s who! Mike Altman was director Robert Altman’s son. A 15-year-old wrote the lyrics, because they had to be stupid, and 49-year-old composer Johnny Mandel, who tried to fill the bill, just couldn’t be stupid enough.

For those who have never seen the picture, which was the motion picture high point of director Robert Altman’s career, one of the characters, played by John Shuck, is contemplating suicide.

The high point of Altman’s career actually came at the beginning, before he even went into the movie business. He directed some of the greatest episodes ever of Combat!, which was arguably the greatest drama in TV history.
The reason Altman’s TV work was so much better than his movies was that his bosses at Combat! forced him to direct with dramatic intensity, focused on perhaps two characters for almost an entire episode.

In one episode, Sgt. Saunders brings a wounded French Resistance leader to a German officer/surgeon who is Saunders’ prisoner. Intuiting that the surgeon is a committed Nazi, who plans on “losing” the patient, Saunders tells him that if the Resistance leader dies, he will kill the surgeon, as well. The operation is a success.

Once Altman got into pictures, he could give free rein to his communist aesthetics, in which there was a lack of focus, as the story would be diluted by a sea of shallow characters (Nashville). In the picture 3 Women, if memory serves, Altman had different female characters melt into each other.

Back to the song.

A good voice is a force multiplier. That’s one reason I find this recording so much better than the opening theme to the TV series based on the picture, the lyrics notwithstanding. It’s the same piece of music, but the movie arrangement is much richer, with violins and a tambourine, and you’ve got singers here.

Music by Johnny Mandel
Words by Mike Altman

Through early morning fog I see,
Visions of the things to be,
The pains that are withheld for me,
I realize and I can see.

That suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes,
And I can take or
Leave it, if I please.

The game of life is hard to play,
I'm gonna lose it anyway,
The losing card I'll someday lay,
So this is all I have to say.

Suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes,
And I can take or
Leave it, if I please.

The sword of time will pierce our skins,
It doesn't hurt when it begins,
But as it works its way on in,
The pain grows stronger... watch it grin.

Suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes,
And I can take or
Leave it, if I please.

A brave man once requested me,
To answer questions that are key,
Is it to be or not to be,
And I replied, “Oh, why ask me?”

Suicide is painless,
It brings on many changes,
And I can take or leave it
If I please.

“Last November Hopscotch, an experimental opera performed in limousines and different locations around downtown, tried to stage a segment in Hollenbeck Park, near Boyle Avenue. Critics had raved about the production, a brainchild of the Industry, LA’s premier avant garde opera company.

“Protesters in Hollenbeck Park felt otherwise and barracked the performers. ‘I made efforts to speak to a woman who appeared to be in charge but was always ignored and often shouted over,’ recalled Marc Lowenstein, the company’s music director. ‘Some of the things she said were: ‘This park is for brown people’ and ‘This is not a park for white people. You are white people.’”

“Things escalated on the show’s final day when members of the Roosevelt high school band used saxophones, trombones and trumpets to drown out the opera. Performers moved to another side of the bandshell but the high school band followed them, urged on, according to Lowenstein, by activists from a group called Serve the People LA (STPLA).

“‘I asked our own musicians to play along with the high school players, to engage them. The Serve the People members, though, encouraged the high school players to become physically intimidating and they themselves became physically intimidating.’”

“The opera fled. ‘We were all pretty shaken by two things: one, the physical intimidation, and secondly, the use and manipulation of the schoolchildren,’ said Lowenstein. …”

Friday, April 22, 2016

You would think Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s decision to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the twenty-dollar bill would have provoked a massive conservative backlash. But you would be underestimating the extent and speed of Conservatism Inc.’s transformation into Cuckservatism Inc.—submitting to, and even slobbering over, the very forces it is nominally pledged to resist.

Some individuals, notably Donald Trump, along with some of his high profile supporters and sympathizers like Pat Buchanan, Ben Carson, Greta Van Susteren, and Ann Coulter did indeed oppose Lew’s move.

However, when Donald Trump called the move “pure political correctness,” Red State’s Leon Wolf [Email him] said that it was “evident that he is once again signaling to his white supremacist basis of support” [Trump’s Hypocrisy on Harriet Tubman “Political Correctness” Proves that he is Actively Courting Racists, April 21, 2016]

Today, an someone posted this comment to an old blog item, where I had showed that Tim Wise, who claims to be a Jew, is a fraud.

Can we please not be so elitist about Jewish identity? Please? Maybe calm down, just a little?

My family is Jewish, I was raised Jewish, I had a Bat Mitzvah (and survived and everything), I observe the holidays and I am active in my campus Hillel group.

My mother is not Jewish. Yes, I'm pretty sure my Dad is my biological father. Whatever doubts you have about your mother are really for you should work out on your own.

I still call myself Jewish. This doesn't somehow make me a Nazi. I mean, I'm not the one obsessing over bloodlines and ethnicity -- that's all you, buddy.

I'm reform (the rules are different) and while Judaism is important to me I never felt the need to formally convert.

Certainly not so that you can decide I'm Jewish enough.

I responded,

Anonymous Gentile,

You calm down. Don’t tell anyone else to calm down.

I’m elitist, in that I insist that 2 + 2 = 4.

Words have meanings. Things in the world have meanings. Your family is not Jewish, you weren’t raised Jewish, and you did not have a Bat Mitzvah.

“Whatever doubts you have about your mother are really for you should work out on your own.”

That statement was as much out of leftfield as everything else you said.

You are apparently a part of a world of frauds, who all seem to be whites living in First-World countries, who think that they and their allies (but not everyone in general) can call themselves anything they wish (except for black), reality be damned—men who call themselves women, women who call themselves men, and now, gentiles who call themselves Jews, etc.

Pat Buchanan went on Hannity to discuss the state of the Republican primary race. As of today Donald Trump has the only path to win the nomination. Cruz and Kasich are just playing spoilers. Buchanan says the future of the Republican Party belongs to the Trump supporters.

So that you won’t be fooled by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claiming Second Amendment supporters were celebrating the Oklahoma City bombing this week—as she has on April 19 in years past—Tuesday was the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, a date all Americans used to know.

This year, New Yorkers celebrated by voting to keep the country that was christened in blood at Lexington and Concord.
Until Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, most Americans knew as little about Paul Revere’s ride as Rachel Maddow does today.

The Tampa Bay Tribune has just won a Pulitzer Prize for its discovery of five black high school “failure factories” in Pinellas County FL, where I now live. The implication: if weak teachers are removed, the five failing schools will metamorphose into satisfactory schools. As a career education professor, I roll my eyes. The Times’ intellectuals (Michael LaForgia, [Email] Cara Fitzpatrick [Email] and Lisa Gartner[Email] ) were apparently unaware of the pattern of “failing” black schools in places like Newark, Camden, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta…in fact, everywhere. Why?

This is thoughtful commentary. I agree with some of it, and disagree with some of it. Darwinism always leads to circular thinking regarding human society. (I'm not a Darwinian.) The speaker’s voice is clear, but he speaks in a monotone. He should work on avoiding that. I wish him the best of luck.

“Butch's analysis of the Neoreactionary and Alt-Right concept, The Cathedral. The Cathedral viewed as a social technology for organizing disparate groups into an abstract collective, thereby increasing the scale of the group, thus increasing its competitive advantage against smaller groups.”

A very few of you may recall a hilarious but short-lived sitcom named Calucci’s Department. It ran at 8 p.m. on Saturday nights, and was about a New York State Unemployment office in New York City full of goldbricks, managed by harried James Coco. The most notorious malingerer was the Puerto Rican character, Gonzalez (Jose Perez), whose signature line became nationally famous, which is no mean feat for a show hardly anyone watched. Anytime the supervisor asked him to do something, Gonzalez gave the same answer: “Thass not my yob, man.”

Calucci’s Department appeared during an ancient era, in which observational humor was permitted.

Calucci’s Department died after a mere 11 episodes because it was on a suicide mission, up against NBC’s Sanford & Son, which for many years was either the #2 (and occasionally #1-rated) show on TV. The #1 (and occasionally #2-rated) show all those years was CBS’ All in the Family. Sanford & Son and All in the Familywere both created by Norman Lear.

Current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen sounds just like Gonzalez. Every year, millions of illegal aliens engaging in identity theft send in fraudulent tax returns. Koskinene refuses to forward the information to law enforcement, lying that, “Thass not my yob, man.”

When William F. Buckley Jr. died in 2008 at age 82, conservatives were deprived of his wit, his intelligence, his charisma, and his panache. But they also lost something more important than their leader’s charms. They lost his authority. And they need it now more than ever.

[The senescent Buckley had long lost his authority, and a good thing, too. His embrace of neoconservatism and cocktail society had rendered him worse than useless. He had become a cancer on right-of-center politics.]

It was Buckley who for decades determined the boundaries of American conservatism. When he published his first book, God and Man at Yale, in 1951, there was no conservative journal of note, no mainstream challenge to liberalism. Philosophical conservatives such as Buckley’s teacher Willmoore Kendall, Eric Voegelin, Richard Weaver, and Leo Strauss were isolated. Like conservatism, they were ignored.

The American Mercury, for which Buckley worked briefly, was a nest of anti-Semites. The libertarian Freeman was beset with infighting, more interested in criticizing the New Deal than in coalition-building. Cranky, conspiratorial, bigoted, frustrated, powerless—this was the conservatism of William F. Buckley’s young adulthood.

[Continetti is no intellectual. For him, a magazine is merely a political weapon.]

Buckley changed things when he founded National Review in 1955. He introduced the philosophers to the populists. He published the traditionalists, the libertarians, the Cold Warriors in the same pages. Not only did he aspire to fuse free markets with traditional values, he wanted to be taken seriously by the New York media and cultural elite. Dismissed in embarrassing fashion by Dwight Macdonald in the pages of COMMENTARY in 1956, National Review was unquestionably the tribune of an engaged, informed, and rising American conservatism by the time Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California a decade later.

Why the transformation? Part of the reason is that Buckley and his editors spent an enormous amount of time and energy during the early years of the magazine disassociating their conservatism from its atavistic and gnostic forebears.

National Review is a great example of media gatekeeping theory: By exiling anti-Semites, Birchers, and anti-American reactionaries from its pages, the magazine and its editor determined which conservative arguments were legitimate
and which were not. By denying a platform to quacks and haters, they
broadened their potential audience.

[By Continetti’s pc standards, Buckley was a Nazi.]

And Buckley did more than exorcise demons. He welcomed converts. When a group of anti-Communist liberals began to drift from the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Buckley and company lowered the drawbridge and welcomed the neoconservatives to the castle. “Come on in,” National Review editorialized, “the water’s fine.” The editors of the American Mercury never would have published writers with the surnames Podhoretz and Kristol. The editors of National Review did. The result was a conservatism infused with empiricism, with the densely reasoned argumentative style of the New York [Jewish] intellectuals. The Reagan administration would reap the benefits.

[Bill Bennett a “benefit”? Mel Bradford differed on that point, and so do I. Buckley’s embrace of the neocons harmed both them and him. Both groups became political whores, and sacrificed their principles and intellectual rigor.]

Lately, though, it’s seemed as if the process by which William F. Buckley legitimized American conservatism has gone into reverse. The gatekeeper theory of media, it turns out, works only when the barriers to entry in the media are high. When Robert Welch was deprived access to subscribers of National Review, he really had no other means to address an audience beyond the members of the John Birch Society. When an article alleging a Zionist conspiracy to control the banks was rejected, it meant the end for that article and for the writer’s future. Publishing a magazine and producing television is expensive. Not everyone can do it.

But anyone with the Internet can write a blog or tweet or Facebook post or can Skype or record a podcast. The castle no longer has walls. The gatekeepers are mostly useless. Yes, the rise of social media may have helped conservatives—it allowed them to investigate, report, opine, entertain, and influence politics and policy by giving them the means to bypass liberal outlets. [And to bypass the likes of Buckley, the mediocre children of Kristol and Podhoretz, and even the children’s in-laws, such as Continetti, who married the daughter of neocon bratpacker Bill Kristol.] We’ve gone from a universe with half a dozen conservative journals publishing on infrequent schedules to one where
there are dozens of center-right websites operating 24/7. [Cliché alert: Cable news outlets only operate “24/7” by re-running pieces on endless loop. What websites “run” 24/7?] I edit one of them.

But there is also a cost. As conservative media has proliferated, the authority of any one man or publication or radio show or television network has receded to the point of invisibility. For a time conservatism may have resembled the Catholic Church, with Buckley as pope, issuing bulls and ex-communicating heretics. But conservatism these days more closely resembles Islam, with untold numbers of mullahs issuing contradictory fatwas, with antagonistic schools of thought competing for adherents, with not a few radicals eager and willing to blow the whole thing up.

The nasty mouth-breathers Buckley expelled from conservatism have returned. The proximate cause of this efflorescence of the pre-Buckley right is Donald Trump’s campaign for president. [Continetti has switched cause and effect. Trump didn’t bring forth the Dissident Right; it brought him forth. Are his readers so ignorant? Maybe so.] Trump has dog-whistled at racists so much for so long [Huh?] that they feel resurgent. They call themselves the “alt-right,” a grab-bag category that includes nativists, eugenicists, bigots, anti-Semites, misogynists, reactionaries, aristocrats, monarchists, isolationists—basically anyone who hates today’s America and the modern world and the men and women, of any race or religion, who flourish in it.

[This is the talk of a liberal, not of conservative. How could any conservative not hate today’s America? In William F. Buckley’s heyday, he opposed the Civil Rights Act. Matthew Continetti clearly embraces it, so long as he doesn’t have to live with its consequences.]

For a while the alt-right was confined to the comment sections on websites, then it moved to Twitter, then it created websites of its own, and now, most disturbingly, its ideas, such as they are, are being published and defended and celebrated on sites associated with the conservative movement and Republican politics.

[Garbage. The “alt-right” (which clearly in Continetti’s mind is synonymous with the Dissident Right) has had Web sites since the 1990s, while Twitter was invented not quite ten years ago.]

So, on March 29, Breitbart.com published “An Establishment Conservative’s
Guide to the Alt-Right,” a long taxonomy in which authors Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos argue, “There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence.” Hate to break it to you, guys, but a smart skinhead is still a skinhead.

“In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct,” the authors continue, “the response of the Establishment—the conservative Establishment—has been to openly welcome that extinction.” Ah, yes—because you know Mitt Romney spends his days thinking about how to punish the white man. What was that about the alternative right being “intelligent” again?

[This is just so bloody stupid. When was Mitt Romney ever a conservative? And establishment claims that whites will be a minority in their own country by 2040, I believe that such could be the case for non-Hispanic whites as early as 2020. If Continetti denies that America’s ruling elites, including the GOP, have welcomed the political disenfranchisement of whites, he’s a pathetic liar.]

On March 30, TheFederalist.com published “The Intellectual Case for Trump I: Why the White Nationalist Support?” It’s a rambling, overly long, embarrassingly personal essay mainly about the (Jewish) author’s failed attempts to court an avowed white supremacist: “I continued to send out feelers and message and speak with her online, keeping my ethnic heritage a secret at first so I could probe her ideology” (!).

[Continetti provided no links.]

The argument of the piece amounts to this: “When you strip away the swastikas, imitation Hugo Boss uniforms, and Klan hoods, there are things that even rabid, clannish white nationalist society does better than our own.” Which things? “Ironically, given their loathing of other cultures, the biggest one is bilingual education.” In German.

[Huh? I don’t know any alt-righters who know German.]

What at first seem like absurd and unintentionally hilarious articles are in fact quite malevolent. They are the vehicles by which anti-liberal and dehumanizing sentiments become legitimized in conservative circles. They are evidence that we are living in the midst of a sort of historical counterfactual: What if the Birchers had expelled Buckley, and not the other way around? They are stepping stones on the path to a pre–National Review media universe of embattled, embittered, impotent conservatives—another conservative dark age.

[That’s it? Where are the Dissident Right arguments that Continetti cited and demolished? He writes a caricature of the young Buckley as the model of conservative respectability, while suppressing the fact that the contemporaries that Continetti hates have ideas that are much closer to the Buckley of his heyday than to Continetti. Thus, what does Continetti stand for? “Never trump.” That’s it. But why does he hate Trump? Because he hates Trump’s supporters. But the Trump supporters he hates most closely resemble the conservatism of Bill Buckley, in his heyday. Ergo, Continetti hates Buckley’s conservatism.

What is there to Matthew Continetti? A celebration of the disenfranchisement of the working and middle-class whites who were already being disenfranchised by racial socialism. He’s an unprincipled class warrior.]

About Me

I am a dissident journalist, whose work has been published in dozens of daily newspapers, magazines, and journals in English, German, and Swedish, under my own name and many pseudonyms. While living in internal exile in New York, where I am whitelisted, I maintain NSU/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau and some eight other blogs (some are distinctive but occasional venues, while others are mirrors), and also write for stout-hearted men such as Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Please hit the “Donate” button on your way out. Thanks, in advance.
Follow my tweets at @NicholasStix.

$ $ $

The response so far to WEJB/NSU’s ongoing fundraiser has been very heartening, but we need tens of thousands of dollars more, in order to tide us over for 2012! If you have given, I thank you. If not, please consider making a donation.